Pamela Smith v. Pride Mobility Products Corp.
700 F. App'x 583
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pamela Smith, pro se attorney-plaintiff, sued in diversity court claiming injuries from a defective wheelchair and its vehicle lift.
- Smith alleged manufacturing and design defects: wheelchair brakes failed on a hill and the lift’s retraction device caused the lift control to retract too far into the vehicle, resulting in loss of control and injury.
- District court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on multiple theories, including violations of California’s Unruh Act and § 51.7, negligence per se, and product liability claims.
- Smith appealed the dismissals; Ninth Circuit reviews Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissals of Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7, and negligence per se claims for failure to plead required elements or specific statutory violations.
- Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded as to Smith’s product liability claims for manufacturing and design defects, finding her factual allegations—liberally construed—sufficient to state those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim under Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b)) | Smith alleged denial of full and equal accommodations due to wheelchair/lift defects | Appellee argued facts did not show denial of equal accommodations/services | Dismissal affirmed — pleading insufficient to show denial of full and equal accommodations |
| Claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7 (violence or intimidation) | Smith characterized incident as involving violence/intimidation by threat | Appellee argued no facts showing violence or threat against person/property | Dismissal affirmed — pleading did not allege required violence/threat element |
| Negligence per se (violation of federal/state laws) | Smith relied on alleged statutory/regulatory violations supporting negligence per se | Appellee contended Smith failed to identify specific laws/regulations and how they were violated | Dismissal affirmed — allegations insufficient to show specific statutory/regulatory violation |
| Product liability: manufacturing and design defects | Smith alleged brakes failed (manufacturing defect) and design caused loss of brakes/control and retraction of controls (design defect) | Appellee argued claims inadequately pleaded | Dismissal reversed and remanded — allegations, liberally construed, sufficient to state manufacturing and design defect claims under consumer expectations and risk-benefit tests |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Barker v. Lull Eng’g Co., 573 P.2d 443 (Cal. 1978) (elements and tests for manufacturing and design defect product liability)
- Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements of a claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7)
- Ramirez v. Nelson, 188 P.3d 659 (Cal. 2008) (elements and requirements for negligence per se under California law)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate review limitation: issues not raised in opening brief are not considered)